leron wrote:how is it better? on a pc you can set it up so the only thing that happens when you close the lid is the screen turns off. when you open it, it turns back on.

The battery is still running less efficiently on a windows notebook when only the screen is turned off, in comparison to when a macbook sleeps.

Lol, it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

Jesus fucking christ people. If you make the windows notebook "do nothing" when you close the lid, stick it in your bag, and lug it around, you are begging for a HDD failure.

Edit: for what it's worth that would be horrible for a mac too. The real advantage is that when a mac goes to sleep and wakes back up the operating system does not hang up like it does sometimes with windows machines. I can leave my macbook running for two weeks just closing it and opening it as needed and never having to worry about a freeze or crash.

Both Windows and Mac computers can fucking sleep. Or standby. Same shit. Hibernation is different.... Yes, Windows computers take a tad bit longer to reload from sleep mode, but not much (and, fwiw, Windows 7 is instantaneous).

djshack wrote:Both Windows and Mac computers can fucking sleep. Or standby. Same shit. Hibernation is different.... Yes, Windows computers take a tad bit longer to reload from sleep mode, but not much (and, fwiw, Windows 7 is instantaneous).

Yes they can sleep, but of the literally thousands of windows notebooks I have used and worked on I have never seen one that could last through six classes without being powered down.

I have two computers: a macbook and a custom windows xp/linux desktop. I would never get another windows laptop unless they completely overhaul the operating system to work better with laptops (and no, Windows 7 is not a overhaul).

Last edited by dextermorgan on Fri May 01, 2009 11:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

dmreust wrote:I do have one question for those people using Macbooks. What note taking software are you using? I have played around with One note and it seems amazing. The only dedicated note taking software I've seen for the Mac is Omni Outliner and I was considerable underwhelmed after having played with One note. Could someone please shed some light on this for me?

Just use One Note, with VMWare Fusion! (http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/). It allows you to run Windows and/or any windows software on a Mac AND is super awesome. Make sure you have at least 2GB of RAM to make it work smoothly, but once you have that, you're golden. Plus, it has Unity Mode, which is the most exciting bit of software I've come across in the past few years.

I figured this might be the response I got. The problem I have with it is this; If I'm going to spend some extra cash to get a Macbook I want to be using OS X which is effectively the reason for having a Mac (in my mind anyway). If I'm running Windows thorugh VMWare Fusion non-stop for note taking and whatnot, I may as well just be using Windows. Besides, I assume that Windows 7 really will be a lot better. I plan to wait for the next release on the May 5th, install it on my desktop, and make my decision that way. Thanks for the reply though.

VMWare Fusion Unity Mode is not running the same as running Windows from a user perspective, even if you could potentially argue that it is from a technological perspective. It simply allows you to use OneNote as if it were mac software--as an icon on the doc, with no interaction with non-OneNote Windows. I think that individual programs (like Word 2007) run better in Unity Mode than in Vista; or rather, they run on a Mac with 2GB of RAM at approximately the same level as on a PC with 4GB of RAM, but the operating system surrounding them is less buggy.

Additionally, it allows all potential benefits of OS X, including some software that I am particularly fond of, which is not an option with a Windows-only machine. Basically, OS X is the only option that allows the best of all three worlds (Vista, if that floats your boat, OS X, and whatever linux you prefer).

It still runs Windows--it just essentially hides it from the user. From my experiences with both Fusion and Parallels (recentlly, and on a 2.16 GHz duo core 2 GB RAM MacBook), they suck. You cannot get Windows to run at the same performance level as with Boot Camp or on a PC. For OneNote, that may be fine, but don't think using Unity Mode will make magic happen. It just sticks the program in its own virtualized window, rather than on a Windows desktop in a window.

i think i'm leaning toward getting a macbook for law school. after getting blue screened every day this wk on my work PC (apparently the AT&T aircard doesn't work very well with Vista) and being constantly reminded that i have re-activate my anti-virus software on my home PC, i'm done with Windows. it was great while it lasted, but it's time for an upgrade

djshack wrote:Both Windows and Mac computers can fucking sleep. Or standby. Same shit. Hibernation is different.... Yes, Windows computers take a tad bit longer to reload from sleep mode, but not much (and, fwiw, Windows 7 is instantaneous).

Yes they can sleep, but of the literally thousands of windows notebooks I have used and worked on I have never seen one that could last through six classes without being powered down.

I have two computers: a macbook and a custom windows xp/linux desktop. I would never get another windows laptop unless they completely overhaul the operating system to work better with laptops (and no, Windows 7 is not a overhaul).

Not sure what you are talking about. I go for weeks without restarting my PC laptop. Also, you can customize a PC to do anything that the Mac does, including not having to log in after sleep, coming back from sleep just as quickly, etc. Some people are saying they like the Mac because, gee whiz, those default settings are better on the mac. That's a fair point. Not everyone wants to mess around with settings.

djshack wrote:Both Windows and Mac computers can fucking sleep. Or standby. Same shit. Hibernation is different.... Yes, Windows computers take a tad bit longer to reload from sleep mode, but not much (and, fwiw, Windows 7 is instantaneous).

Yes they can sleep, but of the literally thousands of windows notebooks I have used and worked on I have never seen one that could last through six classes without being powered down.

I have two computers: a macbook and a custom windows xp/linux desktop. I would never get another windows laptop unless they completely overhaul the operating system to work better with laptops (and no, Windows 7 is not a overhaul).

Not sure what you are talking about. I go for weeks without restarting my PC laptop. Also, you can customize a PC to do anything that the Mac does, including not having to log in after sleep, coming back from sleep just as quickly, etc. Some people are saying they like the Mac because, gee whiz, those default settings are better on the mac. That's a fair point. Not everyone wants to mess around with settings.

Maybe Dexter was running Vista on a slow and old Dell that was past its 6-month lifespan? Try it on a ThinkPad.

djshack wrote:Both Windows and Mac computers can fucking sleep. Or standby. Same shit. Hibernation is different.... Yes, Windows computers take a tad bit longer to reload from sleep mode, but not much (and, fwiw, Windows 7 is instantaneous).

Yes they can sleep, but of the literally thousands of windows notebooks I have used and worked on I have never seen one that could last through six classes without being powered down.

I have two computers: a macbook and a custom windows xp/linux desktop. I would never get another windows laptop unless they completely overhaul the operating system to work better with laptops (and no, Windows 7 is not a overhaul).

Not sure what you are talking about. I go for weeks without restarting my PC laptop. Also, you can customize a PC to do anything that the Mac does, including not having to log in after sleep, coming back from sleep just as quickly, etc. Some people are saying they like the Mac because, gee whiz, those default settings are better on the mac. That's a fair point. Not everyone wants to mess around with settings.

You have to admit, Windows going for weeks without a restart is an anomaly rather than the rule.

And you can't customize a non-Apple machine to run Mac OS X natively. You can use Hackintosh, et al, but it just doesn't run quite as well.

djshack wrote:Both Windows and Mac computers can fucking sleep. Or standby. Same shit. Hibernation is different.... Yes, Windows computers take a tad bit longer to reload from sleep mode, but not much (and, fwiw, Windows 7 is instantaneous).

Yes they can sleep, but of the literally thousands of windows notebooks I have used and worked on I have never seen one that could last through six classes without being powered down.

I have two computers: a macbook and a custom windows xp/linux desktop. I would never get another windows laptop unless they completely overhaul the operating system to work better with laptops (and no, Windows 7 is not a overhaul).

Not sure what you are talking about. I go for weeks without restarting my PC laptop. Also, you can customize a PC to do anything that the Mac does, including not having to log in after sleep, coming back from sleep just as quickly, etc. Some people are saying they like the Mac because, gee whiz, those default settings are better on the mac. That's a fair point. Not everyone wants to mess around with settings.

You have to admit, Windows going for weeks without a restart is an anomaly rather than the rule.

And you can't customize a non-Apple machine to run Mac OS X natively. You can use Hackintosh, et al, but it just doesn't run quite as well.

1) No, windows problems are generally a result of user error. Lots of customizability + compatibility with every junk piece of software under the sun = people messing up their machine left and right. I have multiple windows machines that never crash, and I never have to restart except when installing or something. This is only an anomaly insofar as people who do not mess up their machine are an anomaly.

I should mention that even the susceptibility to user error and software conflicts is largely a thing of the past for windows. It has been improved a lot. The reputation is just carried over from years prior.

2) We were talking about opening and closing laptops. I meant that you can customize windows to do anything mac does when opening or closing a laptop.

To the person that asked earlier, my laptop is an Asus M50 series. The only complaint I have is that the screen resolution doesn't go very high. That's a big deal for me, but perhaps it wouldn't be for some of you. It tops out at 1280x1024. I'm a 1600x1200 type of guy.

bigben wrote:1) No, windows problems are generally a result of user error. Lots of customizability + compatibility with every junk piece of software under the sun = people messing up their machine left and right. I have multiple windows machines that never crash, and I never have to restart except when installing or something. This is only an anomaly insofar as people who do not mess up their machine are an anomaly.

I should mention that even the susceptibility to user error and software conflicts is largely a thing of the past for windows. It has been improved a lot. The reputation is just carried over from years prior.

2) We were talking about opening and closing laptops. I meant that you can customize windows to do anything mac does when opening or closing a laptop.

A fresh, clean, updated install of Windows could probably last three weeks. I say probably because it doesn't matter if it could or could not, what matters is the normal user experience and the normal user experience is that Windows generally not last three weeks between reboots. The normal user experience is what matters and if people who are able to manage a system correctly are anomalous, then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that the average user will be unable to go three weeks between reboots on a Windows box. The everyday user will never become competent enough to manage an XP/Vista box to sustain three week periods between reboots, maybe they will on 7, but I'm not confident.

There is no way the susceptibility is a thing of the past. After working in a datacenter for six years and dealing with customers who run Windows servers designed for stability, people's capability for screwing their Windows machine up is just as high as it ever was if not more so.

I will be getting a Lenovo T400 Thinkpad for classes next year. I've used them, love 'em, and the battery life is unmatched by any other brand--latest tests show it maxed out at around 10 hours. And besides, they're built like tanks and run great.

tcwhat wrote:A fresh, clean, updated install of Windows could probably last three weeks. I say probably because it doesn't matter if it could or could not, what matters is the normal user experience and the normal user experience is that Windows generally not last three weeks between reboots. The normal user experience is what matters and if people who are able to manage a system correctly are anomalous, then so be it. It doesn't change the fact that the average user will be unable to go three weeks between reboots on a Windows box. The everyday user will never become competent enough to manage an XP/Vista box to sustain three week periods between reboots, maybe they will on 7, but I'm not confident.

There is no way the susceptibility is a thing of the past. After working in a datacenter for six years and dealing with customers who run Windows servers designed for stability, people's capability for screwing their Windows machine up is just as high as it ever was if not more so.

I agree that if people who are able to use a computer correctly are anomalous, then the normal user experience is going to be problematic. However, I don't believe that is the case. I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary. You have asserted that this is the case, but that's not very convincing, especially since your experience seems to be in tech support which would be highly skewed toward the users having issues. Moreover, people with problems are vocal about it whereas people without problems are not. Even if it were the case that the normal experience was problematic, that is not all that matters. Maybe people need more training if they have complex needs/objectives, or if they don't, maybe they need a different product.

Again, I have several Vista machines that never crash, and never require a reboot except in the typical case. I am no tech wizard either.

When I said that the susceptibility to user error and software conflicts is largely a thing of the past, I meant that Vista is improved in this area over XP. That is a well-known fact. A lot of technical people complain about it because they are used to messing with complex settings all the time, which can be harder to access in Vista. There are also more restrictions on software compatibility. The flip-side of all this is that less experienced users don't mess things up as much. It's a trade off to some extent.

Anyone have any experience with 10.1" netbooks? I'm considering Samsung, Asus, or MSI. I recently checked one out and am concern about the screen size, specifically, toggling multiple screens. Any thoughts from those who own a netbook in this size? Has it worked for you? The 12.1" look a bit more manageable.

Sean104 wrote:Anyone have any experience with 10.1" netbooks? I'm considering Samsung, Asus, or MSI. I recently checked one out and am concern about the screen size, specifically, toggling multiple screens. Any thoughts from those who own a netbook in this size? Has it worked for you? The 12.1" look a bit more manageable.

I think a few people mentioned they have netbooks in this thread, and I think one poster just bought a 10'' Samsung netbook. I'm looking at getting a 10.2'' MSI Wind U123, which apperantly just went on sale right now. Soon, there will be a few more 12'' netbooks out there. Dell has the Mini 12 out, and Acer annouced the Aspire One 751 which is 11.6'', so it looks like there will continue to be more options.

I like the hp mini and the asus eee pc which has up to 9 hours of battery life! The MSI wind has the smallest keyboard of all of the netbooks, which is only 80% of regular size. Most other netbooks have keyboards around 90 to 95% normal size.

I'm not really sure why concern over reboots runs so deep in this thread. It takes like two minutes and your computer runs better after it. Just turn it off a couple of nights per week. And as far as not being able to stay up for three weeks, I've run individual programs (mIRC) on Windows XP for over a month before on perhaps 1-2 year old installs.

I saw somebody mention BSOD--I use windows computers perhaps 8-12 hours per day (I know, coolsville over here), and I'd be willing to bet money that I haven't seen BSOD even three times since I quit using Windows 98.

The other main concern about Windows is that it's more susceptible to getting a virus--it is, but when Macs become more widely used they will no longer be immune. I see this happening within three years. Just about a week ago I got my first virus in over two years, but it was completely my fault. I was downloading from sites I wasn't familiar with. This totally bone headed move cost me a full day in backing up and reformatting. But it wasn't the computer's fault.

This next sentence is going to sound PC-elitist, but I promise it's not... All that said, I do think that a Mac is better for people who have very little computer literacy and who are unwilling to learn. PC is better for people who are able to use one correctly (with some exceptions; they know who they are). But as Macs get more and more popular, the reason for Mac's advantage will decrease.

1000bmr wrote:I'm not really sure why concern over reboots runs so deep in this thread. It takes like two minutes and your computer runs better after it. Just turn it off a couple of nights per week. And as far as not being able to stay up for three weeks, I've run individual programs (mIRC) on Windows XP for over a month before on perhaps 1-2 year old installs.

I saw somebody mention BSOD--I use windows computers perhaps 8-12 hours per day (I know, coolsville over here), and I'd be willing to bet money that I haven't seen BSOD even three times since I quit using Windows 98.

The other main concern about Windows is that it's more susceptible to getting a virus--it is, but when Macs become more widely used they will no longer be immune. I see this happening within three years. Just about a week ago I got my first virus in over two years, but it was completely my fault. I was downloading from sites I wasn't familiar with. This totally bone headed move cost me a full day in backing up and reformatting. But it wasn't the computer's fault.

This next sentence is going to sound PC-elitist, but I promise it's not... All that said, I do think that a Mac is better for people who have very little computer literacy and who are unwilling to learn. PC is better for people who are able to use one correctly (with some exceptions; they know who they are). But as Macs get more and more popular, the reason for Mac's advantage will decrease.

I love PCs, but still...this thread has deteriorated from its original point. My advice? If you want a PC, get a Thinkpad. If you want a Mac, get a Macbook. If you want a netbook, you can't go wrong with HP's.

coolkatz321 wrote:I love PCs, but still...this thread has deteriorated from its original point. My advice? If you want a PC, get a Thinkpad. If you want a Mac, get a Macbook. If you want a netbook, you can't go wrong with HP's.

coolkatz321 wrote:I love PCs, but still...this thread has deteriorated from its original point. My advice? If you want a PC, get a Thinkpad. If you want a Mac, get a Macbook. If you want a netbook, you can't go wrong with HP's.

QFT. Y'all need to STFU and apply your nerd rage somewhere else.

Lol.

My school has a program with Dell that involves only the 13 inch E4300 and the 14 inch E6400. Anyone have any experience with these? The E4300 would be great for portability at under 4 pounds, but I sometimes here people say Dell are bad at making pooters.

Spinoza wrote:My school has a program with Dell that involves only the 13 inch E4300 and the 14 inch E6400. Anyone have any experience with these? The E4300 would be great for portability at under 4 pounds, but I sometimes here people say Dell are bad at making pooters.

I have an E1505 that I've extremely happy with (except the ATI graphics card, bleh). Dell makes great computers, but the customer service part of their business is absolutely awful to the point where you might consider paying more or settling for less to buy elsewhere. And under no conditions should you use Dell financing.